Links – Tracking Glyphosate Exposure Risks
From Exposure to Payout: The Surface-Level Story
ACC—the Accident Compensation Corporation—is designed to be New Zealand’s no-fault safety net for injury. On the surface, it sounds fair. Efficient. Neutral.
But when it comes to toxic exposure—especially to chemicals like glyphosate or its more potent cousin, Roundup—that system starts to show cracks.
Since 1990, ACC has accepted:
- 359 claims involving Roundup, with total payouts of around $875,000
- 20 claims specifically mentioning glyphosate, with payouts totaling just $6,241
That works out to roughly $2,400 per claim. A burn here. A rash there. A chemical splash in the eye.
But none of the Roundup claims were classified as gradual process injuries—the category where you’d expect to see chronic illnesses like non-Hodgkin lymphoma show up. It appears we’re treating chemical exposure as an accident, not an unfolding risk.
Where Are These People Now?
And that brings us to the more important question:
What happened to the people behind those claims?
Were they ever followed up with?
Tracked over time?
Monitored for health complications?
As far as we can tell, no.
Once the payout was processed, that was the end of the story. No ongoing data collection. No national health registry of glyphosate-exposed individuals. No cancer screening or medical surveillance. Just a payment—and silence.
And it’s not just ancient history. These exposures are still happening—or happened recently enough to matter.
Over the 24 months leading up to July 2025, Auckland Council reported six separate glyphosate exposure incidents involving staff or contractors who were doused, splashed, or sprayed with glyphosate-based weedkiller. We covered this in detail here.
None of those incidents, as far as we know, led to ACC claims or any long-term medical follow-up.
Just a wash-down, a change of clothes, and back to work.
And those are just the ones that made it onto paper.
If six incidents were formally reported, how many others were shrugged off?
How many exposures go undocumented, uninvestigated, and ultimately—unremembered?
Which leads us to a harder truth:
If no one reports it—and no one investigates it—does the harm even count?
And if glyphosate is really “safe when used as directed,” as authorities continue to claim—
then why have courts overseas awarded billions in damages to individuals who developed cancer after long-term use?
And why has Roundup been pulled from U.S. home and garden centers—not for safety reasons, but to limit Bayer’s legal exposure?
Were They Ever Warned?
Perhaps the most troubling part of this whole situation is that no one appears to have warned these claimants about the longer-term risks associated with their exposure.
They likely thought they were dealing with a one-time accident—an inconvenience, not a carcinogen.
You can’t give informed consent retroactively.
If people weren’t told about the cancer risk, they were never truly protected.
Even now, there’s no indication that ACC has contacted past claimants to update them on the potential health implications of their exposure.
No advisories.
No letters.
No registry to check if someone who filed a chemical burn claim in 2005 has since developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2025.
It raises a critical question:
Have we already missed the early warning signs?
The Lymphoma Link No One’s Watching
As we explored in a previous article, Lymphoma and Glyphosate: Are We Asking the Right Questions?, New Zealand has one of the highest rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the world.
Yet there’s no national inquiry. No mainstream media investigation. No urgent response from public health officials.
Could the people who already filed glyphosate-related injury claims be part of the answer?
We don’t know.
Because no one’s looking.
A System That Isn’t Built to See the Bigger Picture
It’s not just ACC. This is a wider systemic failure.
- WorkSafe doesn’t publish any glyphosate-specific occupational cancer risk data.
- The Ministry of Health has not launched any formal studies or monitoring around glyphosate exposure and cancer.
- MPI has proposed increasing the allowable residue levels in food—without updated local testing to justify it.
In short, New Zealand is managing this risk with regulatory convenience, not public health foresight.
What a Responsible System Might Look Like
Imagine, instead, a system that took chemical harm seriously:
- A national health registry of individuals exposed to high-risk toxins like glyphosate
- Automatic follow-up from ACC years after a payout to check for developing symptoms
- Employer-mandated health monitoring for workers who handle hazardous products regularly
- Public education campaigns warning of long-term risk—not just protective gear instructions
Until we treat chemical exposure as a chronic risk—not just an acute incident—people will keep slipping through the cracks.
Final Thought: It’s Not Just About Compensation. It’s About Accountability.
ACC may have closed those claims. But the story isn’t over.
Not for the workers. Not for the contractors. Not for the council employees or gardeners or landscapers who were exposed, injured—and then forgotten.
If we don’t track the long-term effects, we’ll never connect the dots.
And if we don’t inform people of the risks, we’re failing them twice.
This isn’t just a payout issue.
It’s a public health warning waiting to be written.
And the clock is ticking.
Resources & References
We often assume that once a payout is made, justice has been served. But as this article explores, compensation without accountability isn’t justice—it’s closure without answers. The resources below provide essential context for those asking whether New Zealand’s current system is truly fit for purpose when it comes to chemical exposure and long-term health risks.
Bayer to Remove Glyphosate from U.S. Home Market — In 2021, Bayer announced it would withdraw glyphosate-based Roundup from U.S. residential shelves by 2023. The reason? To reduce legal risk—not because of new scientific findings. Agricultural versions remain available.
Read more on EcoWatch
$611 Million Appeal Verdict Upheld in Missouri — In May 2025, a Missouri appellate court affirmed a $611 million verdict against Bayer’s Monsanto for three plaintiffs with non‑Hodgkin lymphoma linked to Roundup exposure (including $61.1 m compensatory and $549.9 m punitive damages)
By Diana Novak Jones on Reuters.com
NZ Cancer Registry: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Statistics — According to the 2021 age-standardised cancer incidence data from Te Whatu Ora, non‑Hodgkin lymphoma had an incidence rate of 13.1 per 100,000 people in New Zealand, ranking it among the more common cancers nationwide.
figure.nz – Cancer incidence rate in New Zealand
Historical trend analysis (1981–2010) shows that NHL incidence in New Zealand increased by 67% in men and 74% in women, and is projected to continue rising into the future.
Epidemic of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in New Zealand Remains Unexplained
IARC vs. EPA: A Clash Over Glyphosate’s Carcinogenicity — The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) says glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” The U.S. EPA says it’s “not likely.” This regulatory disagreement underpins global controversy.
IARC Monograph Summary
EPA Glyphosate Interim Decision
Lymphoma and Glyphosate: Are We Asking the Right Questions? — Our previous article exploring the startling rise in non-Hodgkin lymphoma in New Zealand—and the silence surrounding its potential connection to glyphosate.
Read the article
We don’t just need more data. We need the right data—and the courage to ask what it might be telling us. Until then, the question isn’t whether harm has occurred.
It’s whether we’ve been too afraid—or too complacent—to follow up.
Image Source & Attribution
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by Connect Images.
